[RWC2023 SF2] England vs South Africa (21/10/2023)

[Saintjay]

We all know in this day and age you are guilty until proven innocent. They must have some pretty good lawyers to put a statement out like that.

Rassie 101 - say what you think worry about the consequences later. Nice to see the RFU getting a spine on this.

 

[Jer1cho]

Rassie 101 - say what you think worry about the consequences later. Nice to see the RFU getting a spine on this.

Character defamation certainly is a spine. Just shows how nobody even needed evidence in the first place. Guilty as soon as you are accused.

 

[Hydraulxx]

Bongi should file for defamation against the RFU.. He was cleared and they still go make that statement

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Bongi should file for defamation against the RFU.. He was cleared and they still go make that statement

"Insufficient evidence at this time" line from WR means that the door is still open on him having done it - it's not like they've come out and said he didn't do it

 

[Rinkadink]

Bongi should file for defamation against the RFU.. He was cleared and they still go make that statement

He hasn't been cleared though.

Literally a lack of evidence, that doesn't mean he is innocent nor Curry incorrect. Tom could be incorrect of course and Bongi could potentially be cleared but your post makes no sense when it's literally come down to a lack of evidence. Nothing has been decided either way. Given RFU statement and world rugby saying Curry made complaint in good faith (plus Marler?), after being undecided I'm starting to lean towards the racial abuse did indeed happen.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Character defamation certainly is a spine. Just shows how nobody even needed evidence in the first place. Guilty as soon as you are accused.

I don't understand this post. Or your definition of defamation. Clearly you have made up your mind. But the post by the RFU says that "Tom Curry reported to the referee that he has been racially abused by"
What's the problem here? They are reporting correctly that Tom Curry reported this to the referee. And they are backing their player who says he experienced the same from the same player 4 years ago.
It also shouldn't be incumbent on the person making the allegations to be able to provide evidence or else to keep their trap shut - that discourages victims from coming forward. If they can't cite sufficient evidence that naturally may mean that no charges can be brought, as is the case here - but that doesn't mean they should say silent and not make allegations. WR are responsible for what goes on on the rugby field.

 

[ncurd]

It's pretty galling there's no disciplinary hearing. If I made that accusation in the workplace that's the minimum that would happen. This is basic stuff most coprperations have got their head round.

No reprisals of the accussee.
Believe them even without proof.
Conduct a proper and through investigation.

Even if you eventually decide not to take measures against the accused due to a lack of evidence. Or the investigation leads you to believe there's a misunderstanding.


It sounding like Curry wasn't even able to give a full account of what happened. And Bongi his full defence. They just went looking for evidence didn't find any and decided nothing needed to done.


When Bongi gets racially abused by the crowd on Saturday WR have bought it on themselves.

And I still feel sorry for Bongi he hasn't been found innocent so this stink will stay.

Bongi should file for defamation against the RFU.. He was cleared and they still go make that statement

He wasn't cleared god this a stupid comment. Defamation is incredibly hard to prove you not only have to prove that what Bongi allegedly said didn't happen but Curry made the accusation in bad faith.

 

[Jer1cho]

I don't understand this post. Or your definition of defamation. Clearly you have made up your mind. But the post by the RFU says that "Tom Curry reported to the referee that he has been racially abused by"
What's the problem here? They are reporting correctly that Tom Curry reported this to the referee. And they are backing their player who says he experienced the same from the same player 4 years ago.
It also shouldn't be incumbent on the person making the allegations to be able to provide evidence or else to keep their trap shut - that discourages victims from coming forward. If they can't cite sufficient evidence that naturally may mean that no charges can be brought, as is the case here - but that doesn't mean they should say silent and not make allegations. WR are responsible for what goes on on the rugby field.

Was he? Prove it. Can't prove it? Prove to me it wasn't a ploy within the game itself. Prove to me Bongi didn't speak Afrikaans and was misinterpreted.

Nothing? Yet the RFU puts a statement out saying "

The RFU fully support Tom Curry in raising the racially abusive behaviour he experienced whilst playing for England against South Africa.

During the match between England and South Africa on Saturday 21st October 2023, Tom Curry reported to the referee that he has been racially abused by Mbongeni Mbonambi.

That is not an accusation. It's a statement. "He did this, and we are disappointed nothing has been done about this."

 

[Saintjay]

Was he? Prove it. Can't prove it? Prove to me it wasn't a ploy within the game itself. Prove to me Bongi didn't speak Afrikaans and was misinterpreted.

Nothing? Yet the RFU puts a statement out saying "

The RFU fully support Tom Curry in raising the racially abusive behaviour he experienced whilst playing for England against South Africa.

During the match between England and South Africa on Saturday 21st October 2023, Tom Curry reported to the referee that he has been racially abused by Mbongeni Mbonambi.

That is not an accusation. It's a statement. "He did this, and we are disappointed nothing has been done about this."

And nobody can prove he didn't do it on those dates. The only way he'd win on defamation is if he can prove what was said is a lie.

Ultimately it's who you believe ultimately only the two parties involved know the truth.

I didn't see many SA fans calling for libel / slander cases in support of Nic Berry yet get all upset when the RFU call out a SA player. Absolute double standards.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Well, you haven't heard the audio and visual context, that's kind of the problem here?

Its at 12s in that clip. You have to strain a bit but once you hear it you hear it.

 

[ncurd]

Its at 12s in that clip. You have to strain a bit but once you hear it you hear it.

And its been reported that's not the incident.

 

[Jer1cho]

And nobody can prove he didn't do it on those dates. The only way he'd win on defamation is if he can prove what was said is a lie.

Ultimately it's who you believe ultimately only the two parties involved know the truth.

I didn't see many SA fans calling for libel / slander cases in support of Nic Berry yet get all upset when the RFU call out a SA player. Absolute double standards.

I dont think you quite understand the magnitude of accusing someone of racial abuse. Especially in the context of South Africa. Nic Berry? The Rassie video is what you compare this to? The RFU can suck a load of fat dicks in my opinion, and the mere fact that they have to wave their 2 cents at a 'case closed no evidence' and put out a statement basically saying he absolutely did what he is accused of, is beyond pathetic, but definitely not unexpected, from England.

 

[ncurd]

I dont think you quite understand the magnitude of accusing someone of racial abuse. Especially in the context of South Africa. Nic Berry? The Rassie video is what you compare this to?

I don't think you understand defamation laws.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

And its been reported that's not the incident.

How can it be that Bongi yells "Wyd kant, wyd kant!" immediately before Curry goes to the ref about Bongi calling him "white cnut" and thats not the incident? Bizarre.

Well, not immediately but at the next oportunity.

 

[Jer1cho]

I don't think you understand defamation laws.

Defining defamation of character - It can manifest in two forms: libel, which refers to written or printed defamatory statements, and slander, which pertains to spoken or oral defamatory statements. Whether intentional or not, defamation can have severe consequences for both the victim and the person responsible.

defamatory -
(of remarks, writing, etc.) damaging the good reputation of someone; slanderous or libellous.
"a defamatory allegation"

Im not talking laws, Mr Genius. I said, CHARACTER DEFAMATION.

Try harder.

 

[Saintjay]

I dont think you quite understand the magnitude of accusing someone of racial abuse. Especially in the context of South Africa. Nic Berry? The Rassie video is what you compare this to? The RFU can suck a load of fat dicks in my opinion, and the mere fact that they have to wave their 2 cents at a 'case closed no evidence' and put out a statement basically saying he absolutely did what he is accused of, is beyond pathetic, but definitely not unexpected, from England.

Ok fine Nic Berry and family can get abuse and threats. Basically called a racist and that the WRU is as well because your captain is spoken with differently.

What's pathetic is SA rugby claiming they are always the victim and then fans wanting to pursue libel cases against anyone who accuses there players of wrong doing.

You get done for either libel (written) ie The RFU statement or Slander (spoken). Rassie's video. The defamation is the cause of this.

 

[ncurd]

How can it be that Bongi says "Wyd kant" immediately before Curry goes to the ref about Bongi calling him "white cnut" and thats not the incident? Bizarre.

Well for started despite being written similarly wyd kant and what was allegedly said sound nothing alike and its not like Curry doesn't have experience with the SA accent. Like go record yourself saying both sets of words and ask yourself if you could be genuinely mistaken between the two.

Its an off the ball incident when it goes out of play.

 

[Everyday EggChaser]

Ok fine Nic Berry and family can get abuse and threats. Basically called a racist and that the WRU is as well because your captain is spoken with differently.

What's pathetic is SA rugby claiming they are always the victim and then fans wanting to pursue libel cases against anyone who accuses there players of wrong doing.

Just to add, Wayne Barnes wife received death threats as well.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Was he? Prove it. Can't prove it? Prove to me it wasn't a ploy within the game itself. Prove to me Bongi didn't speak Afrikaans and was misinterpreted.

Nothing? Yet the RFU puts a statement out saying "

The RFU fully support Tom Curry in raising the racially abusive behaviour he experienced whilst playing for England against South Africa.

During the match between England and South Africa on Saturday 21st October 2023, Tom Curry reported to the referee that he has been racially abused by Mbongeni Mbonambi.

That is not an accusation. It's a statement. "He did this, and we are disappointed nothing has been done about this."

I may well just post the same thing as I did before. as I don't feel you've properly addressed any of it

Your idea of a justice system troubles me - they have presented evidence, and they think it is good enough. WR have decided they don't think its conclusive. Ok fine. But this idea that the burden is on the person making allegations to either provide proof beyond all reasonable doubt or else not say anything is wrong or troubling. As I said before, it's not Tom Curry or the RFUs job to have all parts of the pitch mic'd up to protect players against discrimination.

Defamation also doesn't work in the way you are suggesting, it is hard to prove, and especially when those making allegations have provided evidence that they believe in. Would you feel more better about this if they had inserted 'Tom Curry believes' he experienced racial abuse? Ok, but I'm not sure why you are choosing to focus on defamation and personally I have zero confidence that would you be taking this position if roles were reversed in this incident.

To be clear, I don't even have an opinion one way or another on what took place but your idea of how this should work is just plain wrong to me.

 

[Jer1cho]

Ok fine Nic Berry and family can get abuse and threats. Basically called a racist and that the WRU is as well because your captain is spoken with differently.

What's pathetic is SA rugby claiming they are always the victim and then fans wanting to pursue libel cases against anyone who accuses there players of wrong doing.

This is not the issue. This is a BY-PRODUCT of the issue. Who do you think is condoning the abuse? I am certainly not. I am condemning a STATEMENT by the RFU, not alleging, or accusing, but STATING Bongi is a racist, who racially abused a player, when the committee found NO EVIDENCE/INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE that this is the case. Whether it is even true or not, is absolutely irrelevant in how that statement has been worded.

Cobus Reinach and his family received death threats after the QF, but no one even batted an eye at that did they? No hate against the French fans. No WR statement. Nothing. Yeah. always the victim hey.